[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090215104245.GA2320@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 11:42:45 +0100
From: Damien Wyart <damien.wyart@...e.fr>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Bug #12650] Strange load average and ksoftirqd behavior with
2.6.29-rc2-git1
> > Note that if the box you test this on is multi-core or HT, then interpreting
> > traces is easier if there's just a single CPU to look at. In that case i'd
> > suggest to reproduce with just a single core, by turning the second one off:
> > echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
> > Or, if the problem only occurs with two cpus, restrict tracing to CPU#1:
> > echo 2 > /debug/tracing/tracing_cpumask
> The box I test on is HT, so I tried the first suggestion and it made the
> problem much less visible (but not completely absent).
> So I used "echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online" to go back to
> HT mode and then it made the problem much more visible on CPU#1:
> ksoftirqd/1 is running a lot and ksoftirqd/0 is almost normal. The load
> average is about 0.80 and the total running time for ksoftirqd/1 is
> almost one minute (and I booted on rc5 ten minutes ago)!
> So I followed the tracing steps in the tutorial (with the 1 sec sleep),
> which gave me this:
> http://damien.wyart.free.fr/trace_2.6.29-rc5_ksoftirqd_prob.txt.gz
Of course, I used your first suggestion (tracing on CPU#1) to get this
trace.
--
Damien
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists